Retiring Alignment Requirements?

How exactly do they intend to enforce this edict?

With NINJA WIZARDS!

All the arguing over Paladin's alignment and Smite and Clerics being to strong a healer... from what I've heard you can make both the Paladin and the Cleric base classes look EXTREMELY silly by just taking the 'HOLY WARRIOR' variant out of the Pathfinder Campaign Setting. AND... Guess what? You can be ANY alignment you want as long as it is accepted by your deity. No Domains, d10 HD, Good BAB, Favored Weapon, Cleric Spells (at 1st level)... ANY ALIGNMENT. All that aside, I think I've discovered the broken 'Duskblade' of DIVINE classes!

Well nuts! Class was about to start, so I had to leave before I could finish my post (sorry for quoting you twice, but I can't go back and edit it now). Oh well.

From a roleplaying standpoint, I approve of the PCS Cleric variant because it allows you to play a Paladin (or rather, the Holy Warrior class that apparently has only one alignment available to it) without jumping through hoops.

On the other hand, it seems way overpowered. Seriously overpowered. Has anyone heard of the Lightning Warrior? It was this homebrewed class someone made that basically had everything (oddly enough, the creator called it "the class that sacrificed power for flavor").

D20 HD, all good saves, full BAB, Ranger's # of class skills and skill points per level, full caster, Wizard spell list, prepared casting (but no need for a spellbook), the ability to memorize a new spell just like a scroll (but without cost), proficiency with all simple and martial weapons (and can deliver touch spells through weapon attacks and cast in light armor), and TWF, ITWF, GTWF, PTWF, TWD, ITWD, and GTWD, as well as bonus feats from the fighter and wizard bonus feat list.

So from a gaming perspective, I don't know if I approve of the "Divine Lightning Warrior" yet.

Marty1000 wrote:

Can someone really tell me what is different between a neutral good person and a chaotic good person?

NG means you are good, but don't put too much an emphasis on either order or freedom. you are unbiased towards order - you will usually follow the laws, as long as they don't force you towards evil behaviour. You still value personal freedom, but think that this only goes so far, and sometimes laws might need to limit this for your own good.

CG means that you dislike order, tradition, and judgemental people, for the evil they bring. You have your own moral code, and follow it, but you won't let anyone else tell you where your moral compass should point to just because someone decided so. You don't quite propose anarchy, but that's just because there's evil people out there. In a situation where you know everyone's basically good-natured, you won't bother with laws - everyone will follow his own judgement, and whatever problems may arise can be dealt with by talking about it. You don't give a damn about traditions, especially if they hold anyone back. You might follow them, but that's more often by accident, as they mirror what you think is the best course of action.

Thanks. you gave me more or less the description out of the books. Where I was going with my line of thought on this was that in the course of general game play and roleplaying, there isn't much of a tangible difference between a CG and NG character so just combining them into "Good" is a sensible simplification. But I am fine with D&Ds alignment system whether it exits as 9 alignments or 3 or 5 or 6.

And I think the only core class that needs the alignment restrition is paladin. I think lawful makes sense for the monk as described in the D&D and PF games.

As for non-lawful martial artists, anyone can play a fighter or any other class for that matter who pumps feats into improved unarmed strike and related skills and feats.

In D&DéPF, all characters of a monk class are martial artists but not all martial artists need be monks

No, I was specifically objecting to Sueki Suezo's expressed attitude that sacred cows were automatically deserving of destruction, instead of at most a careful culling. People who don't have any interest in preserving D&D's sacred cows can go play 4th Edition, True20, Palladium Fantasy, Talislanta, Earthdawn, Rolemaster, GURPS Fantasy, Fantasy HERO . . .

Is there a purpose to retaining this particular sacred cow? Does it do anything to help players build better characters or GMs tell better stories? I'm not saying we need to get rid of alignment (and I still don't know how that idea ended up getting attributed to me), but I think that some of the class/alignment restrictions we have in place right now actually prevent people from accomplishing the two goals listed above.

Let me show you somethig amazing. It's a beverage rich with nutrition, especially calcium, which is good for your bones.

The stuff is called milk. In our society, most of this milk we drink comes out of cows.

Beyond that, their droppings make good natural fertiliser.

So your statement is dead wrong, not only figuratively, but also literally.

You can get milk and sh*t and leather from other animals, but you can only get steak from a Cow.

And Steak > Milk in any event. LOL

Sueki Suezo wrote:

I'm not saying that we should remove Alignment altogether. I'm just saying that I don't think certain classes should be shoe-horned into specific alignments unless there is an awfully good reason to do so. Removing alignment restrictions doesn't tamper with these rules at all - it just means that a Chaotic Monk might get whacked with a Dictum from time to time.

Okay... that I (mostly) agree with; I'd misread one of your posts.

That's ok. I mistyped one of my posts. LOL

KaeYoss wrote:

Let me show you somethig amazing. It's a beverage rich with nutrition, especially calcium, which is good for your bones.

The stuff is called milk. In our society, most of this milk we drink comes out of cows.

Beyond that, their droppings make good natural fertiliser.

So your statement is dead wrong, not only figuratively, but also literally.

You can get milk and sh*t and leather from other animals, but you can only get steak from a Cow.

And Steak > Milk in any event. LOL

I dunno...I've had Ham steaks, Lamb steaks, Deer steaks, Horse steaks, Fish steaks...all kinds of steaks. yes you can only get beef steak from a cow, but if you choose to qualify it like that then you can also only get cow milk from a cow.

I don't know what a Chaos Monk is, never seen it, but my example would be a modern day 'pro-wrestler' in theme. Despite the fact that they (modern pro-wrestling ACTORS) still need some semblance of discipline to prevent themselves and co-ACTORS from getting injured. What alignment do you make a guy, who isn't acting, and beats things to death with his bare hands violently, I'm betting it's not Lawful. A good example being a 400 lb. Gorilla, not exceedingly smart, not disiciplined at all and very savage, but I guarantee you wouldn't want one on your chest beating on you. Yes, this is the kind of character I want to play at some point and 400lb. Gorilla isn't a class. (Yea, I think Carmaggedon is amazing amounts of fun too! LOL!)

You hit the nail on the head right there. The fact of the matter is that if you want to be engaging in Unarmed Combat in PRPG, the Monk Class is the way to go. But as it stands right now, its alignment requirements prevent you from implementing character concepts such as wrestlers, boxers, and drunken masters, and other neutral/chaotic characters that are experts at unarmed combat.

I dunno...I've had Ham steaks, Lamb steaks, Deer steaks, Horse steaks, Fish steaks...all kinds of steaks. yes you can only get beef steak from a cow, but if you choose to qualify it like that then you can also only get cow milk from a cow.

Ok. Fine. I'll concede the point that cows have other purposes besides being turned into steak. They aren't as tasty, but they exist.

But you have yet to convince me why Monks should be always be Lawful and Barbarians can never be Lawful - or why these axioms are so critical to the integrity of the game that they need to be retained.

As for non-lawful martial artists, anyone can play a fighter or any other class for that matter who pumps feats into improved unarmed strike and related skills and feats.

But that's a lackluster option. There are a few good things in the Monk class not accessible through feats or skills and such that people play the Monk class for, and then the "Lawful Only, Shaolin, etc." stuff is just the other stuff they have to put up with.

In D&DéPF, all characters of a monk class are martial artists but not all martial artists need be monks.

There shouldn't be a Monk class. There should be a Martial Artist class, the "Monk" being one way of describing said class. (Just like how there shouldn't be a Paladin class, but rather a Holy Warrior class, the LG version of which is commonly known as a Paladin.)

Marty1000 wrote:

As for non-lawful martial artists, anyone can play a fighter or any other class for that matter who pumps feats into improved unarmed strike and related skills and feats.

But that's a lackluster option. There are a few good things in the Monk class not accessible through feats or skills and such that people play the Monk class for, and then the "Lawful Only, Shaolin, etc." stuff is just the other stuff they have to put up with.

Marty1000 wrote:

In D&DéPF, all characters of a monk class are martial artists but not all martial artists need be monks.

There shouldn't be a Monk class. There should be a Martial Artist class, the "Monk" being one way of describing said class. (Just like how there shouldn't be a Paladin class, but rather a Holy Warrior class, the LG version of which is commonly known as a Paladin.)

You could argue that point about the monk not existing and replacing it with a martial artist and such ideas are in supplements like oriental adventures, or at least it gives options for martial artists that are alternative to the monk class.

The monk class as presented in D&D is based on the shaolin monk. Could you change this? sure. but many of the powers presented in the monk come from that shaolin or similar tradition.

As for paladin just being an LG version of a holy warrior class... You are wrong. Being LG alignment is a restriction. It balances a paladin's (supposed)extra powers. Being of another alignment is not a restriction - they all allow for flexibility and options during moral and ethical quandaries that LG does not allow. If you want non-LG "paladins" then take the divine champion PrC or play 4ed.

As for paladin just being an LG version of a holy warrior class... You are wrong. Being LG alignment is a restriction. It balances a paladin's (supposed) extra powers. Being of another alignment is not a restriction - they all allow for flexibility and options during moral and ethical quandaries that LG does not allow. If you want non-LG "paladins" then take the divine champion PrC or play 4ed.

Or realize that the paladin is a lot weaker than the cleric (for example), accept that the LG restriction has a lot more to do with flavor and tradition than with any mechanical balance, and go ahead and have fun playing that non-LG "paladin." Unless, again, there's some way of enforcing an edict prohibiting people from doing so.

...Unless, again, there's some way of enforcing an edict prohibiting people from doing so.

Actually,

You have been warned...

Actually, i was just hired to go door to door and confiscate the rulebooks of people playing houseruled "non-Lawful Good" Paladins. You have been warned...

I hereby declare that you, as a member of the rogue class, cannot be of lawful alignment. Confiscating rulebooks to enforce edicts is a LE act. Therefore, you cannot do so and still retain any class features. I'm off the hook again!

houstonderek wrote:

Actually, i was just hired to go door to door and confiscate the rulebooks of people playing houseruled "non-Lawful Good" Paladins. You have been warned...

I hereby declare that you, as a member of the rogue class, cannot be of lawful alignment. Confiscating rulebooks to enforce edicts is a LE act. Therefore, you cannot do so and still retain any class features. I'm off the hook again!

Um, I Dm'ed last time, so i'm NOT doing so in the name of Jaak, but rather as "The Arbiter of All Rules, Great and Small".

(plus, i just REALLY need some more books...)

(plus, i just REALLY need some more books...)

Ah, "do unto others as they have done unto you."

houstonderek wrote:

(plus, i just REALLY need some more books...)

Ah, "do unto others as they have done unto you."

P.S. Thanks again for the cashews -- that was a LG act worthy of a paladin. It made my transition from DM to player much easier (although I think JJ ate as many of them as I did).

No worries, by distracting you with cashews, I was able to conceal the fact that i pulled the entire session out of my posterior until you asked me if I had written all that stuff up.

(yeah, you and JJ tore them up!)

Observation: both the monk and paladin have a paragraph at the end of their descriptions regarding what happens when you change alignments (and/or break your code). In both cases, the beta states you cannot progress in that class, and in the case of the paladin, lose most of your abilities. However, the barbarian does NOT have an "ex-barbarian" section, and no where (that I could see) does it state that a barbarian who becomes lawful cannot progress further in his class. Oversight? Or does it mean a barbarian can become "civilized" as they progress (i.e. become lawful) without repercussions?

EDIT: More related to the original question, even if a monk had to be lawful to start, I think they should drop the restriction that they have to remain lawful. This could represent changes in philosophy as they gain experience.

Daniel Moyer wrote:

Oh baby! This is a fight I have been trying to fight for sometime.

So, from your somewhat disjointed post, my understanding (unless I totally misinterpreted it) is that if I allow, say, a Paladin of Freedom in my game, someone is going to burst in the door and prevent me from doing so, by forcing me to purchase a campaign setting hardcover and use the variant in that instead? How exactly do they intend to enforce this edict? My player with the Martial Discipline character will be petrified, looking over his shoulder all the time in case the Gaming Gestapo finds out!

LOL! Not likely, nor did I mean any such thing by my post, by all means play what you want to play. My point was that the Holy Warrior does everything better and lacks an alignment restriction, arguably to the point of being game breaking as he potentially makes any Paladins or Clerics in your party look silly and useless.

Besides if the Gestapo were to come knocking I too would be in line at the register grabbing a copy of the Campaign Setting since I don't have one. Though I do have that wonderful PHB2 book, my DM does not allow those Paladin variants, no matter there are many other classes to play. :)

I dunno...I've had Ham steaks, Lamb steaks, Deer steaks, Horse steaks, Fish steaks...all kinds of steaks. yes you can only get beef steak from a cow, but if you choose to qualify it like that then you can also only get cow milk from a cow.

Hmmm... that's a lot of steak! Someone have some A-1 sauce and a knife?

But you have yet to convince me why Monks should be always be Lawful and Barbarians can never be Lawful - or why these axioms are so critical to the integrity of the game that they need to be retained.

I gather you think the alignment restrictions interfere in your concept of the class... apparently they are part of the core concept of the class the creators have. The monk has always been lawful, the paladin lawful (lawful in the pre good / evil days or lawful good later) and the barabarian always non-lawful -- in every iteration, every edition in which they have appeared. In any event, it's an easy house rule to make the alignment restrictions go away for your game. I'm not sure why you want everybody elses conception of them to change too. Unless of course, you just want company :D

Seriously though, the alignment restriction for the monk makes perfect sense (to me). I use a homebrew "templar" class (not the prestige class) to fulfill the role of paladin in my game with various alignments possible by deity / temple. It has never occured to me to try to change everyone elses concept of the paladin. Why bother? I don't even use the barbarian or monk in my game (they don't really fit the world all that well). I could re-work them to fit, but even if I did I wouldn't bother to push for a change in any one elses game... if you want some variation in the class house rule it or go foe a setting specific variation. No real need to interfere with the generic conception of the classes imo.

In short, to borrow your phrasing, you have yet to show me why the alignment restrictions on these classes should be dropped...

The monk class is clearly a mystic class, not a generic unarmed fighter. Still Mind, the Ki Pool, Purity of Body, Wholeness of Body, Diamond Body, Abundant Step, Diamond Soul, Timeless Body, Tongue of the Sun and Moon, Empty Body, Perfect Self . . . these are not appropriate to someone who is a focused boxer or wrestler or what-have-you. To turn the monk into a general "martial artist" class would require a massive rewrite beyond simply tossing aside alignment restrictions.

The OP brought up some great options, and for pretty much all the reasons given in this thread I really do hope the designers scrap alignment restrictions from Bards / Monks / Barbarians. They really arn't needed.

The monk class as presented in D&D is based on the shaolin monk. Could you change this? sure. but many of the powers presented in the monk come from that shaolin or similar tradition.

As for paladin just being an LG version of a holy warrior class... You are wrong. Being LG alignment is a restriction. It balances a paladin's (supposed)extra powers. Being of another alignment is not a restriction - they all allow for flexibility and options during moral and ethical quandaries that LG does not allow. If you want non-LG "paladins" then take the divine champion PrC or play 4ed.

Sure, the inspiration for Monk abilities can come from (be inspired by) Shaolin traditions. But that doesn't mean that the entire Shaolin concept needs to come through (or rather, that it needs to come through with the class rather than the Campaign Setting).

The problem with an alignment (roleplaying) restriction being used to balance out supposedly superior powers is that those superior powers shouldn't even be there. If we have a choice between a Paladin getting extra powers and having an alignment restriction and the Paladin/Holy Warrior being as powerful (no more, no less) as any other class without the alignment restriction, I hope we go towards the looser option.

And as for playing 4E, I already do. But that has nothing to do with whether I want Pathfinder to also succeed, do well, be created right, etc.

In any event, it's an easy house rule to make the alignment restrictions go away for your game. I'm not sure why you want everybody elses conception of them to change too. Unless of course, you just want company :D

Seriously though, the alignment restriction for the monk makes perfect sense (to me). I use a homebrew "templar" class (not the prestige class) to fulfill the role of paladin in my game with various alignments possible by deity / temple. It has never occured to me to try to change everyone elses concept of the paladin. Why bother? I don't even use the barbarian or monk in my game (they don't really fit the world all that well). I could re-work them to fit, but even if I did I wouldn't bother to push for a change in any one elses game... if you want some variation in the class house rule it or go foe a setting specific variation. No real need to interfere with the generic conception of the classes imo.

In short, to borrow your phrasing, you have yet to show me why the alignment restrictions on these classes should be dropped...

Because some groups don't like houserules or homebrews. I created a lot of homebrewed classes for 3.5 (Psi-Fighter, revamped Hexblade, Soulblade, revised Swashbuckler, Favored Soul, Champion, Psionic Avatar, Mantra Monk, and so on) just to fix the problem classes. The problem is that every time I want to use one of these homebrews, I either have to fight to get it passed (when any one of them could've passed on their own merits) just because it wasn't officially printed, or I wouldn't fight because it'd be futile (i.e., the DM doesn't allow anything not officially printed). Yes, this may be an intergroup problem, but it's not unique to my group by any means.

Furthermore, while creating those classes was fun at the time, campaigning to get them allowed proved to be not worth the benefits. And it shouldn't even be necessary. The core rules should be able to support any concept a player has, from the Sanctified Warrior of Kord to Ranma Saotome, world's greatest martial artist, extremely disciplined in his own mystical martial arts style, but otherwise, well, uncivilized.

So why make the change? Because it makes the game more player friendly by allowing a wider variety of character concepts to actually be expressed without the need for individual campaigning of fixes. And I fail to see how it hurts the game of someone who likes it the way it is to have those options still there (LG Paladin, Lawful Monk) while also allowing others (non-LG "Paladin", nonlawful Monk).

*snip*

But it could be in the final rules as an option, presumably, i.e., "Option: Drop alignment restrictions".

In short, to borrow your phrasing, you have yet to show me why the alignment restrictions on these classes should be dropped...

I think that I've presented my case fairly clearly, but I'll repeat it: the alignment restrictions that are currently in place for Monks and Barbarians prevent players from implementing certain character concepts and don't contribute anything to the rules in terms of mechanics or game balance.

The monk class is clearly a mystic class, not a generic unarmed fighter. Still Mind, the Ki Pool, Purity of Body, Wholeness of Body, Diamond Body, Abundant Step, Diamond Soul, Timeless Body, Tongue of the Sun and Moon, Empty Body, Perfect Self . . . these are not appropriate to someone who is a focused boxer or wrestler or what-have-you. To turn the monk into a general "martial artist" class would require a massive rewrite beyond simply tossing aside alignment restrictions.

Maybe so, but tossing out the alignment requirements for Monks is a good start. If we do that, Monk can at least be used as the basis for some new prestige classes promoting those options, and it will sync better with the unofficial, non-PRPG prestige classes left over from 3.5.

see wrote:

The monk class is clearly a mystic class, not a generic unarmed fighter. Still Mind, the Ki Pool, Purity of Body, Wholeness of Body, Diamond Body, Abundant Step, Diamond Soul, Timeless Body, Tongue of the Sun and Moon, Empty Body, Perfect Self . . . these are not appropriate to someone who is a focused boxer or wrestler or what-have-you. To turn the monk into a general "martial artist" class would require a massive rewrite beyond simply tossing aside alignment restrictions.

Maybe so, but tossing out the alignment requirements for Monks is a good start. If we do that, Monk can at least be used as the basis for some new prestige classes promoting those options, and it will sync better with the unofficial, non-PRPG prestige classes left over from 3.5.

The mystic role starts way too early in the class for it to serve as "the basis for some new prestige classes promoting those options" . . . and revising the monk enough to serve as the basis for such classes would require completely breaking the continuity with the 3.x class (and, while you're at it, with the 1e Monk and Rules Cyclopedia Mystic). It makes much more sense to create unarmed prestige classes for those roles that assume a fighter base.

Dropping alignment restrictions because you want fighting mystics dedicated to Good or Chaos or Evil or Neutrality available instead of just to Law makes sense. Dropping the monk's alignment restrictions because you want a generic unarmed warrior doesn't; even without the alignment restriction, the monk is a square peg that doesn't fit that round hole.

Dropping alignment restrictions because you want fighting mystics dedicated to Good or Chaos or Evil or Neutrality available instead of just to Law makes sense. Dropping the monk's alignment restrictions because you want a generic unarmed warrior doesn't; even without the alignment restriction, the monk is a square peg that doesn't fit that round hole.

Agreed. Let me just be clear. I think the Monk should be a mystic unarmed fighter. He's the closest thing to a generic unarmed fighter, but the class shouldn't stop there. It should stop after the "mystic" part, but before we arbitrarily associate "mystic" with "ascetic, Shaolin, Lawful only" (after all, the Chaos Monk is just as mystic, but not lawful).

And while I'm being clear, I'm defining "mystic" as "supernatural powers". And they don't have to all be the same theme (Abundant Step and Tongue of the Sun and Moon (away from PDF, that is an "Su" ability, right?) certainly aren't), but there should be more choice in the matter. Hence why I advocate Tim Martin's Mantra Monk (for the selection of abilities method the class uses).

This is one of those issues where it is easier to just leave the rule printed and ignore it than to win the battle to have the text changed.

I hated alignment for years until one day when it dawned on me: it is the only true "role-playing" rule in the game. Many GMs have no problem with non-good or non-lawful Paladins, and I imagine their thoughts are even more lax on the requirements of other classes.

It's too easy to ignore it to make the case for changing the ink, in my opinion.

Tongue of the Sun and Moon (away from PDF, that is an "Su" ability, right?)

Ex, oddly enough.

The mystic role starts way too early in the class for it to serve as "the basis for some new prestige classes promoting those options"

I disagree. You get Ki Strike - Magic (which you need in order to not suck) and Purity of Body. So you're very healthy and you can hurt enemies that have DR/Magic with your unarmed attacks. Magical? Perhaps. Mystical? Not so much.

. . . and revising the monk enough to serve as the basis for such classes would require completely breaking the continuity with the 3.x class (and, while you're at it, with the 1e Monk and Rules Cyclopedia Mystic). It makes much more sense to create unarmed prestige classes for those roles that assume a fighter base.

Super! Call me when we have some offical PRPG Prestige Classes that fill those roles. In the meantime, Monk is as good as it gets for players that want to go that route. Hell, it's still the best route for players that use the old unofficial 3.5 Prestige Classes...

Dropping alignment restrictions because you want fighting mystics dedicated to Good or Chaos or Evil or Neutrality available instead of just to Law makes sense.

Couldn't agree with this more!

Dropping the monk's alignment restrictions because you want a generic unarmed warrior doesn't; even without the alignment restriction, the monk is a square peg that doesn't fit that round hole.

Unfortunately, the Monk is the only competent unarmed fighter in the game right now. It might take some arm-twisting to get it to fit a particular character concept, but this is the still the best option for many unarmed fighting character concepts unless the PRPG crew decides to completely re-write the class.

This is one of those issues where it is easier to just leave the rule printed and ignore it than to win the battle to have the text changed.

I hated alignment for years until one day when it dawned on me: it is the only true "role-playing" rule in the game. Many GMs have no problem with non-good or non-lawful Paladins, and I imagine their thoughts are even more lax on the requirements of other classes.

It's too easy to ignore it to make the case for changing the ink, in my opinion.

If this rule is irrelevant enough that most people are ignoring it (and many of them are), then methinks that it's time to change the rule - or strike it from the record entirely.

If this rule is irrelevant enough that most people are ignoring it (and many of them are), then methinks that it's time to change the rule - or strike it from the record entirely.

Fine let's do away with speed limits. Just becuase it's ignored doesn't mean it should be.

I think that I've presented my case fairly clearly, but I'll repeat it: the alignment restrictions that are currently in place for Monks and Barbarians prevent players from implementing certain character concepts and don't contribute anything to the rules in terms of mechanics or game balance.

The point is, the current alignment restrictions do effect the classes in question. They restrict them to certain patterns of behavior. That's the whole point of the alignment restrictions to begin with. It is about game balance. It's one of the balancing disadvantages of these classes. If you play them as designed that is. I've seen some pretty nasty "lawful good" paladins and fairly random "lawful" monks...

As for allowing character concepts... hey, do away with rules and people can build any concept they like. A bit too overstated perhaps, but the rules always restrict character concepts. And again, an easy fix for your own campaign. DM fiat 1, rules 0 and your set.

That's the whole point of the alignment restrictions to begin with. It is about game balance. It's one of the balancing disadvantages of these classes.

So you believe that the Monk and the Paladin are overpowered, and only 'balanced' by their alignment restrictions?

Back in 1st edition, the Paladin *did* have all sorts of cool powers, strapped onto a Fighter chassis, and therefore warranted some sort of balancing mechanic. That's no longer the case, and the alignment restriction is purely a flavor issue.

Alignment restrictions are *not* about balance, because it has zero effect balancing effect whatsoever on the player who *wanted* to play a Lawful Good shining knight character anyway. 'I'm going to punish you by giving you exactly what you wanted! Ha! I'm so clever!'

I'm not convinced that these rules should still stand.

You'll never find a convincing argument for alignment restrictions, because there are none. They're pointless, arbitrary and they can inhibit role playing. It should be noted that Paizo itself has on occasion ignored them; I remember one adventure in particular involving a lawful barbarian NPC.

TS

Sueki Suezo wrote:

If this rule is irrelevant enough that most people are ignoring it (and many of them are), then methinks that it's time to change the rule - or strike it from the record entirely.

Fine let's do away with speed limits. Just becuase it's ignored doesn't mean it should be.

Speed limits ARE relevant laws - they promote public safety on our roads by fining and jailing drivers that drive too fast to be safe. Just because you might ignore them and haven't gotten ticketed yet doesn't mean that they are useless. LOL

But alignment restrictions? Still irrelevant.

I doubt that most people are ignoring alignment restrictions (or that most people want them removed), although I am, of course, just extrapolating from personal experience. Unlike carry/weight restrictions, which many people seem to ignore (not me, though!).

Speed limits ARE relevant laws - they promote public safety on our roads by fining and jailing drivers that drive too fast to be safe. Just because you might ignore them and haven't gotten ticketed yet doesn't mean that they are useless. LOL

I disagree -- most speed limit laws are blatantly a means of revenue production, and have little if anything to do with safety. I love when you enter a new state or county on the interstate, and there's a well-hidden sign for a significant temporary speed limit drop and a cop car on duty at all times... driving conditions haven't changed at all, only the artificial limit. Speed limit laws are a "sheep tax" -- instead of taxing people who earn more, in this case we're giving a special tax exemption to people who drive more slowly (or who successfully Bluff the officers who pull them over).

Sueki Suezo wrote:

Speed limits ARE relevant laws - they promote public safety on our roads by fining and jailing drivers that drive too fast to be safe. Just because you might ignore them and haven't gotten ticketed yet doesn't mean that they are useless. LOL

I disagree -- most speed limit laws are blatantly a means of revenue production, and have little if anything to do with safety. I love when you enter a new state or county on the interstate, and there's a well-hidden sign for a significant temporary speed limit drop and a cop car on duty at all times... driving conditions haven't changed at all, only the artificial limit. Speed limit laws are a "sheep tax" -- instead of taxing people who earn more, in this case we're giving a special tax exemption to people who drive more slowly (or who successfully Bluff the officers who pull them over).

Yep, look at hwy 6 between sugarland and galveston a few years ago. the speed limit was 50 all the way to hitchcock, where it miraculously (with no discernable change in driving conditions) dropped to 30. and they'd pull EVERYONE over doing 31. Well, until the state dropped the hammer on them and told them to stop...

If you study traffic data (and I did, closely, in my old line of work), you'd find that most freeway accidents are caused by people driving significantly under the posted speed limit, rather than a few miles over the posted speed...

Look, alignment restrictions are an old (AD&D) convention that allows us old guys to think we're still playing something gygax came up with. Removing them is the EASIEST HOUSE RULE EVER. Let the old guys have their piece of fluff, m'kay?

Look, alignment restrictions are an old (AD&D) convention that allows us old guys to think we're still playing something gygax came up with. Removing them is the EASIEST HOUSE RULE EVER. Let the old guys have their piece of fluff, m'kay?

A valid point. The designers of 3E have come out and said that the alignment restrictions (and multi-classing restrictions for Monks and Paladins) serve no balance purpose and can be changed based on setting (as they did in the Forgotten Realms).

Easy house rule, with the blessings of the classes designers, so yeah, alignment restrictions can stay text, because some people still like them, and those who don't can ignore them.

But ignoring encumbrance? That's just crazy-talk! :)

houstonderek wrote:

Look, alignment restrictions are an old (AD&D) convention that allows us old guys to think we're still playing something gygax came up with. Removing them is the EASIEST HOUSE RULE EVER. Let the old guys have their piece of fluff, m'kay?

A valid point. The designers of 3E have come out and said that the alignment restrictions (and multi-classing restrictions for Monks and Paladins) serve no balance purpose and can be changed based on setting (as they did in the Forgotten Realms).

Easy house rule, with the blessings of the classes designers, so yeah, alignment restrictions can stay text, because some people still like them, and those who don't can ignore them.

But ignoring encumbrance? That's just crazy-talk! :)

No kidding! well, i guess ignoring encumberance would allow piano playing bards...

If you study traffic data (and I did, closely, in my old line of work), you'd find that most freeway accidents are caused by people driving significantly under the posted speed limit, rather than a few miles over the posted speed...

I find that difficult to believe. After all, your ability to react to a road hazard is greatly diminished when traveling at higher speeds. But even if we assume that your premise is correct, I'd be willing to wager that the speed at which a motorist is traveling marks the difference between a driver that survives and accident and a drive that doesn't.

Also: what percentage of auto accidents in the U.S. involve drinking and driving? A drunk driver is unsafe at any speed...

Look, alignment restrictions are an old (AD&D) convention that allows us old guys to think we're still playing something gygax came up with. Removing them is the EASIEST HOUSE RULE EVER. Let the old guys have their piece of fluff, m'kay?

I'd be more amenable to this suggestion if not for the fact that these rules restrict character creation options for fairly arbitrary reasons. They are not "fluff" - this is just a bad rule.

Back in 1st edition, the Paladin *did* have all sorts of cool powers, strapped onto a Fighter chassis, and therefore warranted some sort of balancing mechanic. That's no longer the case, and the alignment restriction is purely a flavor issue.

Alignment restrictions are *not* about balance, because it has zero effect balancing effect whatsoever on the player who *wanted* to play a Lawful Good shining knight character anyway. 'I'm going to punish you by giving you exactly what you wanted! Ha! I'm so clever!'

Quote:

*edit* It's pushing my reply and my quote of Set together as a quote. Below this line is all me (Chance)...

So, paladins don't have any "cool" powers now? Funny, same HD, BAB, Saves as the fighter in 3.5... I'd say their Special Abilities and spells might be considered "cool" though. Certainly outweighing the perks of the original 3.5 fighter. The fighter has been buffed in PF RPG, evening things up a bit. That I'll give you. Wanting to be a "Lawful Good shining knight" and carrying through on it are two different things. The special abilities are the carrot for sticking to it, the loss of those abilities are the stick for straying from the path. The alignment restriction has both simulation (purity and heroism being rewarded by divine favor) and game balance effects. The paladin could be one nasty character if you just allowed him to do whatever the PC fancied at the moment. His behavior restrictions (assuming the PC wants to remain a paladin) help balance that abuse by restricting the bahavior or presenting consequences for falling from grace. This all assumes that your DM enforces alignment restrictions (or at least the consequences of them) and your PCs act thier chosen alignment (or have plausible reasons for straying and a willingness to suffer the consequences).

I'd be more amenable to this suggestion if not for the fact that these rules restrict character creation options for fairly arbitrary reasons. They are not "fluff" - this is just a bad rule.

"A monk must lead a disciplined lifestyle in order to attain the mastery of ki required for self-perfection" - fluff.

"Alignment: Lawful only" - crunch (bad crunch at that).

So, paladins don't have any "cool" powers now? Funny, same HD, BAB, Saves as the fighter in 3.5... I'd say their Special Abilities and spells might be considered "cool" though.

Not what I meant. I was referring to the difference between the original 1st edition Paladin and Fighter classes, where one class (the Paladin) got all the things that the Fighter got *and* a bunch of special powers, in addition to a Fighters HD and attack bonus. (Weapon Specialization added something to the Fighter, but it was quickly infringed upon by Paladin-Cavaliers, who got Weapon of Choice, and a whole *new* raft of special abilities, as well as even more annoying inter-party-conflict-encouraging roleplay restrictions).

In 3rd edition, the Fighter gets a whole bunch of Feats, and is no longer the ugly step-sister of the Paladin. The Paladin having all sorts of crazy requirements (like a 17+ Charisma!) made more sense in 1st edition, when it was 'Fighter Plus Extra.' Now that it's just another class, using the same XP table, and expected to be more or less 'balanced' against the Ranger, Fighter and Barbarian, there's no 'balance' rationale for the Paladin to have special alignment restrictions (much like the Ranger used to have an alignment restriction as well, when it was also a 'Fighter Plus Extra').

It's not the Paladin stopped getting kewl stuff. It's that the Paladin (or Ranger, or Barbarian) no longer gets everything a Fighter gets *and* kewl stuff.

Finally, IMO, a role-playing restriction is not a valid balancing mechanism, in any event. It only limits the classes playability to a tiny subset, which, IMO, makes it explicitly not appropriate to exist as a *core* class.

For the same reason, I don't think that the always-Chaotic-Evil Orcus-worshipping Death Master works as a core class, because it's just too darn restrictive and limiting. And yet, the Paladin, due to it's stated restrictions on what sort of allies it can group with, is even *more* limiting than the Death Master.

I can make a party with a Chaotic Evil Barbarian, Chaotic Good Bard, Lawful Good Cleric and Lawful Evil Monk, and while they might bicker like an old married couple (or, multiple old married couples...) at a Bingo convention, they aren't required by their class features to quit adventuring and disavow one another, letting the world collapse into darkness and the bad-guys win because they decided that their moral outrage over their companions personal ethics was more important than the fate of the universe.

"A monk must lead a disciplined lifestyle in order to attain the mastery of ki required for self-perfection" - fluff.

"Alignment: Lawful only" - crunch (bad crunch at that).

Agreed.

A Githzerai Monk, coming from a plane of utter chaos, might have a contradictory view of the relationship between Law (The pathetic illusion of control, clung to by those who fear to embrace the true nature of reality, which is fluid and must be adapted to, not forced into unnatural patterns, as if the whims of the universe answer to the insecurity of we mere mortals.) and 'discipline' (The only order is the order within, the only stillness is the quiet certainty of the leaf in the center of the maelstrom. The leaf is not so foolishly proud as to think that it controls the direction of the maelstrom, it merely dances as the universe directs it. Be the leaf. Move with confidence and grace in the direction the universe sends you.).

Sueki Suezo wrote:

I'd be more amenable to this suggestion if not for the fact that these rules restrict character creation options for fairly arbitrary reasons. They are not "fluff" - this is just a bad rule.

"A monk must lead a disciplined lifestyle in order to attain the mastery of ki required for self-perfection" - fluff.

"Alignment: Lawful only" - crunch (bad crunch at that).

Well, that statement was in response to houstonderek's post. But you are 100% correct - this isn't some old piece of fluff for grognards, but a bad piece of crunch that needs to be tossed out the window altogether.